Last edited by Admin on Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:00 pm

Luke

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:57 pmPosts: 31

Why is it that when we have a priest issuing an article on quite an important point there is always someone, usually a laypeson, that feels they know more about the subject than the priest concerned? Now this may be the case, I do not know the author's qualifications (but hasn't Bp Sanborn read de la Taille?), and I wish that having read the above I could find any merit in the arguments posted in bold underneath. All they did was give me the impression of a tit-for-tat argument, and further just raised as many questions against the so called answers.

For instance: Where is it stated that St Vincent Ferrer said an 'una cum' Mass and knowingly included the name of an anti-pope in the Mass? And in any event how is this relevant - it is obvious that every priest would include the name of an anti-pope in the Mass until he himself realised he was an anti-pope. What is of relevance is the whether after all these years, and with the arguments being so publicly made, one can still assume that a priest who includes the name of a heretical pope - i.e. no pope - is merely 'mistaken'. There is such a thing as crass ignorance and vicarious liability isn't there?.

I can't say that some of Bp Sanborn's articles read well but this is not an intellectual response and should also be read with a critical eye.

Luke

Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:34 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Luke wrote:

Why is it that when we have a priest issuing an article on quite an important point there is always someone, usually a laypeson, that feels they know more about the subject than the priest concerned?

Why is it that when one priest agrees with you, and almost every other priest does not, we are subjected to this kind of comment? If you like Bishop Sanborn's views, you're welcome to them, but please stick to the point. Which priest do you follow uncritically?

I see that my efforts have had an effect.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:53 pm

Luke

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:57 pmPosts: 31

Quote:

Why is it that when one priest agrees with you, and almost every other priest does not, we are subjected to this kind of comment?

Does the 'you' refer to me or you? I don't think I said whether I agreed with Bp Sanborn or not. What I was looking for was some kind of intellectual argument to refute it and there was none. You haven't answered my question re St Vincent either.

Quote:

please stick to the point

Talk about beg the question. I thought I had done silly me.

I suppose it is a sad reflection of the crisis that people like you and me do not follow a living priest uncritically. Which living priest do you follow uncritically?

Luke

Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:26 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Luke wrote:

What I was looking for was some kind of intellectual argument to refute it and there was none.

An assertion made without proof falls with a simple denial. I deny.

It is a pity you can't see that Fr. Sanborn didn't actually make any demonstration, but rather engaged in a flurry of empty, disconnected, rhetoric, but that is what it was. If you did think that you identified a valid argument in the midst of that stuff, which therefore demanded refutation, you could repeat it here for us.

Luke wrote:

You haven't answered my question re St Vincent either.

I thought it so obviously defective that it didn't need an answer. Where did you get the idea that St. Vincent "knowingly" included the name of an anti-pope in his Mass? Or that anybody alleged that he did so? Neither Fr. Sanborn nor I said anything like that. Did you read the article?

Luke wrote:

I suppose it is a sad reflection of the crisis that people like you and me do not follow a living priest uncritically.

Do you think so? I don't. I think it is one of the good fruits of the crisis.

Luke wrote:

Which living priest do you follow uncritically?

None. You were the one who put that pointless question, "Why is it that when we have a priest issuing an article on quite an important point there is always someone, usually a laypeson, that feels they know more about the subject than the priest concerned?"

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:58 pm

Luke

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:57 pmPosts: 31

Quote:

an assertion made without proof falls with a simple denial.

So does a denial.

Quote:

It is a pity you can't see that Fr. Sanborn didn't actually make any demonstration, but rather engaged in a flurry of empty, disconnected, rhetoric, but that is what it was. If you did think that you identified a valid argument in the midst of that stuff, which therefore demanded refutation, you could repeat it here for us.

To be quite honest I thought Bp Sanborn's article made quite a lot of 'Catholic' sense. However I will reread it on his site to refresh my memory. If they were,in any way, 'empty, disconnected or rhetoric', the replies were just as much, if not more, so.

Quote:

I thought it so obviously defective that it didn't need an answer. Where did you get the idea that St. Vincent "knowingly" included the name of an anti-pope in his Mass? Or that anybody alleged that he did so? Neither Fr. Sanborn nor I said anything like that. Did you read the article?

Precisely. That was my point. Any priest could, and undoubtedly would, put the name of an anti-pope in the Mass if he didn't know he was an anti pope. Your point regarding St Vincent is therefore worthless.

Quote:

Do you think so? I don't. I think it is one of the good fruits of the crisis

How sad.

Quote:

None. You were the one who put that pointless question, "Why is it that when we have a priest issuing an article on quite an important point there is always someone, usually a laypeson, that feels they know more about the subject than the priest concerned?"

How is this question the same as "Which priest do you follow uncritcally?" No - sorry can't make sense of what you are saying. I think it is obvious that laypeople are criticising priests in these sad times, and I do believe it is sad. In the ordinary state of affairs in Catholic life it should not happen. Whether I do, or you do, is not an answer to 'Why'.

Luke[/b]

Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:46 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Luke wrote:

Quote:

an assertion made without proof falls with a simple denial.

So does a denial.

Luke, no it does not. This is a standard principle in reasoning. I'm surprised you haven't come across it before, but here is how it works. I'm not making any claims - my opponents are. Therefore the onus is on them to prove their position. In this case no proofs were offered - merely tendentious juxtaposition of phrases so as to prejudice the reader (e.g. Greek schismatics and sedeplenists.) Not a single authority was cited. No, not even one. A simple denial demolishes such an effort. This is an axiom. You should find an explanation of it in any book on formal logic.

It is also enormously helpful from an efficiency point of view. If we were required to disprove every idiotic assertion made by every unschooled boy, we'd never have time for our duties, nor for dealing with intelligent objections and questions by courteous and thoughtful people. Do you see what I mean? Life is short.

The capstone of that effort, however, would have to be that the proper formula defining worship in common with non-Catholics was re-written to try and make it apply to worship in common with fellow Catholics. In that one erroneous episode, the entire difference between the two parties was encapsulated. One side sticks with authorities and wishes to avoid schism; the other wanders into uncharted territory and ends up with weird theories. It is far from accidental that this anti-una-cum theory originated in the same mind as the Cassiciacum Thesis, which is why we must keep them remorselessly associated.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:56 pm

Luke

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:57 pmPosts: 31

Big words do not an argument make - or win. Neither does condecescension. What you descibe may have its place between student and professor, not between a priest, with demonstrable knowledge of his subject, and layperson. It is, to use your own noun, axiom that a priest with a recognised training in theology and philosophy would have more 'right' to make an assertion than a layperson, whose life in general may be taken up with the day to day forging of a career or providing and caring for his family, and, therefore, unlikely to have the necessary training and background to engage in true debate.

Quote:

The capstone of that effort, however, would have to be that the proper formula defining worship in common with non-Catholics was re-written to try and make it apply to worship in common with fellow Catholics. In that one erroneous episode, the entire difference between the two parties was encapsulated. One side sticks with authorities and wishes to avoid schism; the other wanders into uncharted territory and ends up with weird theories. It is far from accidental that this anti-una-cum theory originated in the same mind as the Cassiciacum Thesis, which is why we must keep them remorselessly associated

It is also, IMHO, by no means clear that you have undoubted authories for your position, or that Bp Snborn does not. Neither is it clear that you wish to avoid schism with fellow Catholics. It is clear that most people will try to support their view - right or wrong - using whatever means they can. But it has never been a tenet that because a majority of theologians hold a certain view they are right. That is why we have infallibility is it not? After all if a pope can be declared a non-Catholic without sentence of the Church, why not a priest, or a layperson for that matter?

Luke

Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:48 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Dear Luke,

Luke wrote:

It is, to use your own noun, axiom that a priest with a recognised training in theology and philosophy would have more 'right' to make an assertion than a layperson,

This is true. Zero right. We both have zero right to make unfounded assertions and expect them to be accepted by others. But since you want trained priests to slug it out, in my camp I have Fr. Joseph Collins, Fr. Thomas Zapp, Fr. Eugene Berry, Fr. Daniel Ahern, the entire SSPV, the entire CMRI, and a large number of others. You have the US Guerardians and three or four of their associates. Stalemate, at best.

But this still misses the point. I don't care if you choose to subjugate yourself to the non-reasoning in that article. Really. I am merely publishing my reasons for declining to do so myself. Something I have noticed that many anti-una-cum people have in common - you seem to get very annoyed when others don't agree with you. If you wish to deprive yourself of the sacraments on the basis of that kind of junk theology (even Fr. Cekada wouldn't endorse it - write and ask him if you doubt me) then you go ahead and do so. It's no skin off my nose. Since you stated that you liked the arguments, I asked you to state one, but you ignored the question. If you will not engage in rational discussion to that degree, we have nothing to discuss, and I'm not here to provide a platform for you. You can obtain that elsewhere.

Luke wrote:

It is clear that most people will try to support their view - right or wrong - using whatever means they can.

An autobiographical comment which is very, very, unjust to the rest of mankind, I think.

I have now rendered your account inoperative. Email me if you manage to get an endorsement of that article from any priest, especially Fr. Cekada. I promise to publish it if and when you do. How's that for a bargain?

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:38 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Somebody emailed me this comment from Bishop Sanborn.

Quote:

Mr. Lane submitted that una cum means "and also for" as in "We offer this for...and also for her chief members, the pope, bishop, etc." He then claimed Bp. Sanborn now accepted that rendition. I asked the bishop if that were so; to which he responded:

"No matter what interpretation you want to give to una cum grammatically, it remains without a doubt that to mention the name of Ratzinger in the Mass is a declaration of ecclesiastical communion with him AS POPE. What Mr. Lane does not understand is that such an act renders the Mass a non-Catholic Mass, since it places the offering priest in a position whereby he cannot offer the Mass as an agent of the Catholic Church. For just as it would be schism, objectively, to not give recognition, especially in the Canon, to a true Pope, so is it schism to give recognition, especially in the Canon, to a false pope. The pope is the center and principle of unity of the Catholic Church. Therefore your identity as a Catholic depends upon your recognition of and submission to true Popes, and your rejection of false ones.

Interesting. So, that is confirmation of my grammatical point - "una cum" in the Roman Canon means, essentially, "and also for." Not that we needed any confirmation - every authority of any weight is agreed on it.

So much for the rather asinine repetition of the "una cum" term as though it meant that we offer the Mass "together with" the person named.

Now, would it be too much to expect that Bishop Sanborn might deign to offer a proof for his central plank, which is that "such an act renders the Mass a non-Catholic Mass, since it places the offering priest in a position whereby he cannot offer the Mass as an agent of the Catholic Church"? He has not to this date offered any proof, and he is directly contradicted by the only authority we have been able to find on the point - that is, Rev. Maurice de la Taille, S.J.

Incidentally, this claim, "so is it schism to give recognition, especially in the Canon, to a false pope" is directly contradicted by Fr. Cekada in The First Stone. It would be useful to see Fr. Cekada withdraw his claim, or Bishop Sanborn withdraw his, or at least for the two to acknowledge that they cheerfully disagree.

And just because it really is such a clear and just piece of work, here is the relevant section of Fr. Cekada's article. Please note and appreciate the rare public appearance of my good friend Fr. Joseph Collins, whose comment would seem to apply equally well to other, more recent, examples of repetitive verbal hypnotism...

Quote:

Commenting on the third paragraph of the Society of St. Pius V's January 1991 condemnation of Mount St. Michael, Father Collins rightly observes: "To be noted here is the repeated use of the terms 'sect' and 'schismatic.' ... By this point the simple-minded reader has seen these terms eleven times, and is able to repeat them in his sleep. The technique is a common one among the great demagogues of history."

The reader of the January Bulletin, Father Collins might also have added, will search in vain through the entire text of the denunciation for a definition of the terms "schism" and "schismatic."

A similar reluctance to define terms is apparent in a Society priest's recent public letter to parents at his school in Cincinnati. Before going on to announce that he will refuse the sacraments to parents and children who disagree with the Society's position, the author of the letter simply characterizes Mount St. Michael as "schismatic." He, too, neglects to define the term.

Now all this is quite interesting. Here you have two priests. One plowed through mountains of canon law commentaries to write the Constitutions of the Daughters of Mary. The other taught theology and canon law at a traditional Catholic seminary. Both repeatedly condemn Mount St. Michael and the several thousand people associated with it as "schismatics." Neither priest defines the term. Why? The answer is obvious: Both priests know very well that the Code of Canon Law gives a precise and extremely restricted definition for the term "schismatic." And they also know that if they try to stretch that definition in any way and apply it to Mount St. Michael, someone will blow the whistle. The charge on which they base all their bitter diatribes will then collapse.

You don't become a schismatic, you see, by belonging to a group that has skeletons in its closet, used hierarchical titles for its officials, thought it was the Church's only hope, approached former Old Catholics for episcopal consecration, had a corrupt leader, or was guilty of any one of the thousand-and-one other stale accusations one may care to dredge up from Mount St. Michael's past. None of it is "schism."

You become a schismatic if and only if you obstinately rebel against a pope's lawful authority, or refuse ecclesiastical communion with Catholics subject to him.

Here is the definition of "schismatic" as it appears in the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law: "If someone, after receiving baptism and retaining the name 'Christian,' pertinaciously.., refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic."

That's all there is to it. It only remains to ask a few simple questions to see whether this definition applies to the facts on the Mount St. Michael group:

(1) Did the members of this group receive baptism and retain the name Christian? Yes. (2) Did the members of this group "pertinaciously refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"? No. (15) From the beginning through the present, the group's leaders and members have insisted time and again that they are nothing other than Roman Catholics who want to preserve the faith in face of the terrible destruction wrought by the Second Vatican Council. (16) (3) Did the members of this group "refuse to communicate [be in communion] with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff"? No again. Like the Society of St. Pius V and other traditional organizations, however, the Mount St. Michael group insists that members receive only the traditional sacraments -- not out of rebellion against the Holy See, of course, but out of fear of sacrilege.

Commenting on the Canon's definition, moreover, the canonist Father Charles Augustine noted the following: "The Holy Office very properly decided that separation from the See of Peter meant a split in the unity and apostolicity of the Church and setting up another Church in place of the one founded by Christ." Whatever the St. Michael's group can be accused of, it is most certainly not that.

The St. Pius V Fathers have published at least 9 public statements condemning Mount St. Michael. Despite that, they have not produced one scintilla of evidence demonstrating that either the St. Michael's group as a whole or its individual members are guilty of what the Church defines as "schism."

The evidence, I submit, doesn't exist. And since that's the case, the law of the Roman Catholic Church does not deem the St. Michael's group "schismatics." Neither, therefore, should anyone.

Since the Society's key charge against these devout people is no longer tenable, the rest of its case disappears into thin and extremely hot air.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:28 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

After years of prompting, Fr. Cekada finally makes a direct comment on this question, and promises a future article dealing with it. Nothing like a little Antipodean sport to obtain a result.

I will at some point write a short article of my own on the same topic.

I regard John Lane as a neutralizer. For him, sedevacantism is meant to be a hobby that, like collecting stamps or butterflies, has no practical consequences whatsoever on the issue of where a Catholic assists at Mass.

Just a clarification, if you wouldn’t mind. Please permit me to outline the history of this matter, and then it will be apparent what I am asking you to clarify.

As you will recall, back around the year 2000 I sent you a document containing some criticisms of the article by Bishop Sanborn, “Vatican II, the Pope, and the Mass.” You did not comment on that document at the time, and therefore I had no idea what you might have thought of its contents.

Now, I was quite certain that you, particularly, did not endorse Bishop Sanborn’s article, for several of reasons.

1. I searched with Google and neither you nor Bishop Sanborn was still publishing it. (I don’t think you ever did publish it, but correct me please if I am mistaken).
2. There were several clangers in it – I mean, really egregious errors against commonplaces of Canon Law and theology.
3. The article didn’t quote any authorities, and the reasoning was extremely sloppy, unlike your own careful and tightly reasoned efforts.

In order to cut off what I considered to be a puerile commentary on my own criticisms, I issued the challenge to which you have responded below, to the effect that you would certainly not endorse that article of Bishop Sanborn. It seemed a simple way of demonstrating that the article was really a piece of throw-away journalism, not a serious article at all.

My correspondent then drew my attention to a more recent article that I do not recall adverting to previously, entitled “Vatican II, the Pope, and the SSPX.” I noted that it differed from the previous article in some of the points I had criticised back in 2000.

You now respond with your comments below. My question, then is this:

Do you really endorse the definition of Bishop Sanborn’s, “Communicatio in sacris is active participation by Catholics in the worship of non-Catholic religions”?

I had previously pointed out, “This is simply wrong. Fr. Sanborn has departed from the correct definition, which makes non-Catholics the object, rather than the ‘worship of’ their ‘religions’ (which is a separate issue, forbidden whether in common or not).”

Please state for the record whether or not you go along with this incredible claim of Bishop Sanborn’s. I shall publish the answer.

Likewise, I am curious about whether you read the new article very closely, and if you did, whether you really could bring yourself to endorse the following addition.

Bishop Sanborn writes that the SSPX, “cannot invoke against his supposed authority the very authority of the Church (that is, they cannot invoke the principle of Ecclesia supplet), since he supposedly possesses the fullness of the authority of the Church.”

This, as you must realize, is nothing more than a deft trick of words. The SSPX doesn’t need to invokeecclesia supplet. The Church supplies jurisdiction whether you invoke her to do so or not, as long as the conditions mentioned in the Code are verified.

This notion of the SSPX being forbidden to invoke ecclesia supplet whilst Bishop Sanborn may do so, does however give rise to an important liturgical question – during the invocation of jurisdiction, is it necessary to use incense?

Just asking.

Yours in the Precious Blood,
JFL.

Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:33 pm

Teresa Ginardi

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pmPosts: 269

Ordinary Jurisdiction

Hi John,

I do not want this post to distract from Fr. Cekada/Bp. Sanborn replies. However, I was wondering how far we can 'stretch' receiving the sacraments from valid priests? I ask this for personal reasons. Would it be OK to attend an Eastern-rite mass (not eastern-schismatic) if that is the only one available for Sunday Mass within a reasonable driving distance (no other trad masses available)? The priest saying that mass would be in error concerning BXVI, but the mass is valid.

Any thoughts would be helpful?

Thank you.

Happy Visitation of Our Lady

_________________In the Holy Family,
Teresa

Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:55 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Ordinary Jurisdiction

Teresa Ginardi wrote:

I do not want this post to distract from Fr. Cekada/Bp. Sanborn replies. However, I was wondering how far we can 'stretch' receiving the sacraments from valid priests? I ask this for personal reasons. Would it be OK to attend an Eastern-rite mass (not eastern-schismatic) if that is the only one available for Sunday Mass within a reasonable driving distance (no other trad masses available)? The priest saying that mass would be in error concerning BXVI, but the mass is valid.

Dear Teresa,

I would apply the same principles today as most sedevacantists and other traditional Catholics always applied to this question, because the Church has not intervened. Until she does so, any attempt to impose a definitive settlement on the question would be a violation of true order. It would in fact be an act of violence. Most of the "Oyster Bay Nine" still see this great truth - only Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn seem to have forgotten it in recent years. It was in fact very clearly enunciated in that great Opinionist manifesto, the Letter from the "Nine" to Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1983, when the "Nine" were attempting to maintain their membership in the non-sedevacantist SSPX by obtaining concessions concerning points that they regarded as non-negotiable. The "pope question" was not one of those points. (You may read the letter here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=12)

So, to answer your question, if you could find a genuinely orthodox priest who was certainly validly ordained (the oriental Catholics often are ordained by Conciliar "bishops"), then I see no reason not to assist at his Mass - at least in the absence of an alternative. The absence of an alternative is of course one of the factors which affects the judgement concerning scandal.

The relevant principles today, as always, are avoidance of danger of perversion and scandal. This is the same advice I think any sedevacantist would have given in 1975 or 1985. Nothing in principle has changed since either date. (Those who claim otherwise never cite what they consider to be the relevant principle.) In practice, however, I doubt these days that you'll find a suitable Mass offered by an oriental Catholic priest. The rot is very deep and very widespread. This is why we must be grateful for our traditional clergy.

Do you still hold to the attached explanation of principle enunciated in the famous Letter of the “Nine” back in 1983?

If not, at what date did you repudiate it or modify it, and what steps did you take to add this data to the public record?

Yours in the Precious Blood of our Saviour,JFL.

5. Magisterial Authority

The present situation in the Church has generated many unprecedented problems of a theological and practical nature — for example the question of the in se validity or invalidity of the New Mass, as opposed to the question of the attendance at the New Mass. On the one hand, the definitive resolution of speculative theological questions must await the restoration of normalcy in the Church. On the other hand, we must apply Catholic moral and dogmatic principles to practical problems.

The Society must not presume to settle such speculative questions in an authoritative and definitive fashion, since it has absolutely no authority to do so. Any attempt by the Society to teach and impose its conclusions on matters of speculative theology as the only positions suitable for a Catholic to embrace is dangerous and opens the door to great evils — for it assumes a magisterial authority which belongs not to it but to the Church alone.

Now while in theory the Society may deny any claim to such teaching authority, in practice it has acted as though it did have such an authority. For it has proposed solutions to speculative theological questions and has threatened with expulsion or has actually expelled priests and seminarians who disagree with its teaching.

For example on Nov. 8, 1982 a young priest received the following ultimatum on the resolution of a matter of speculative theology:

“If you remain with our Society, you have to gradually clarify your inner viewpoint and have to return to the attitude of the Priestly Society, which seems to us to be the only right one, under the given circumstances, as a talk with theologians this past weekend has shown me again. Think about it seriously, because with this decision your temporal and so much more your eternal welfare is at stake to the highest degree. I will continue to pray for you for divine enlightenment and humble submission.”

Is this a threat of excommunication by a pope to a subject embracing heresy? Does not the prediction and threat of temporal and eternal ruination for a refusal to assent internally indicate the highest teaching and ruling authority?

But alas this is not a pope speaking. These are the words instead of Father Franz Schmidberger, himself a young priest ordained in 1975 by Your Grace who will succeed you as head of the Society, and who presumes to teach and threaten with such authority. This is inadmissible!

To act in such a way puts the Society in the dangerous position of assuming for itself rights and authority which belong to the Magisterium alone. It creates the potential for schism and worse. It is unacceptable from a Catholic point of view. The Catholic thing to do would be for the Society to refrain from attempting to bind the consciences of its members on speculative theological questions which are, in fact, open to discussion, and which can only be settled definitively by legitimate authority when the traditions have been restored.

You will recall that under “Resolutions” towards the end of this famous letter, was the following item:

4. Respect for the magisterial authority of the Church as the sole arbiter of theological questions shall be enforced. Therefore, the Society shall faithfully adhere to the teachings of the Church but shall never usurp that teaching authority by attempting to settle definitively questions of speculative theology. Neither shall it attempt to elicit, by threats of expulsion or any other threats, internal assent to the opinions of its superiors.

So, is it OK to remain subject to Ratzinger? No, it is a mistake in a very grave matter. It is exceedingly dangerous, for(a) it entails the risk that one will think that his commands ought to be obeyed. The Campos fiasco is sufficient evidence of that, if any were needed. And (b), it involves an implicit rejection of truths taught as "certain," in the theology manuals, such as the infallibility of the Church in her general disciplinary provisions.

But it is not "schism" or anything like schism. Nor is it an act of heresy. But the microwaved leaf theory is schismatic on its face, because it endeavours to create a fundamental split between groups of Catholics. If this effort is successful, the resulting split will truly be a schism. For this reason those who promote this warmed-over "leaf theory" of the Church need their feet held to the fire until they agree to prove it or drop it.

As the "Nine" wrote, so many years ago:

"To act in such a way puts the Society in the dangerous position of assuming for itself rights and authority which belong to the Magisterium alone. It creates the potential for schism and worse. It is unacceptable from a Catholic point of view. The Catholic thing to do would be for the Society to refrain from attempting to bind the consciences of its members on speculative theological questions which are, in fact, open to discussion, and which can only be settled definitively by legitimate authority when the traditions have been restored."

God, in His infinite wisdom, has deigned to place us in this situation in which the objective certitude provided by the judgements of the Church is lacking. Those who refuse to accept the situation, and attempt by a kind of intellectual violence to force everybody to submit to their own judgements, are usurping authority and effectively denying the necessity for the papacy.

God, in His infinite wisdom, has deigned to place us in this situation in which the objective certitude provided by the judgements of the Church is lacking. Those who refuse to accept the situation, and attempt by a kind of intellectual violence to force everybody to submit to their own judgements, are usurping authority and effectively denying the necessity for the papacy.

Well stated, and so clear.

In Xto,
Vincent

Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:33 am

Zaqueu

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 amPosts: 31

Dear Mr. Lane,

Though I'm still owing you a reply on the last two threads I've opened (a little bit slow to think through things, but not forgetting!), I dare ask you yet another question.

Your objections to Mgr. Sanborn seem good, and I am interested to find out what Fr. Cekada will have to say against them. In the meantime, however, there was one particular detail of your answer that did not really satisfy me, and I'd ask you to please elaborate on that, which would help me a lot, and perhaps others as well.

It has to do with the following excerpt:

Quote:

"[MGR. SANBORN:] Furthermore, is it not a hypocrisy to publicly profess communion with John Paul II, but to secretly repudiate him? Could God be pleased with such a hypocrisy? “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these is of evil.” (Matthew 5: 37) “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: that you may not fall under judgement.” (James 5: 12)[MR. JOHN LANE:] Comment: Spectacularly beside the point, and unnecessarily judging one's neighbour."

Now, actually, to be frank, my first tendency on that issue is to whole-heartedly agree with the Bishop. How could it be morally commendable to be a closet sedevacantist in a Recognize&Resist milieu? What would be the reasons for such a line of conduct to be licit? And even if it is somehow correct, could it be admirable in any way, or only, at the most, tolerable? (I’m browsing through my edition of Fr Royo Marin’s Moral Theology for Laymen, but couldn’t find anything that might apply. Perhaps I should look further?)

Actually, this duplicity on the part of occult sedevacantists does not seem to do much good for the sedevacantist cause. As stated by a traditionalist priest I admire, though disagree with more and more, and who is somewhat close to the group I (used to?) belong to:

Quote:

“What I detest about the sedevacantists is that they do not even dare to confess they are sedevacantists. As the Pope said last Wednesday at his public audience, ‘The affirmation of our Christian identity [...] calls for the strength, clarity and courage of provocation that belong to the faith’.”

I have a personal interest in this question, since I'm on the eve of being kicked out of my circle of friends, job, kids' school, etc. (NB: in a country with absolutely no SV chapel in sight), in reason of defending sedevacantism. That’s why I appreciate any help I can get, though I must add that neither you, Mr. Lane, nor anybody else should be in the least bit worried about my case, though urgent, since it's a sure fact that, unlike the above-mentioned priests, I'm utterly unable to remain silent about the sedevacantist solution anyway!

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Zaqueu

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:34 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Zaqueu wrote:

MGR. SANBORN wrote:

Furthermore, is it not a hypocrisy to publicly profess communion with John Paul II, but to secretly repudiate him? Could God be pleased with such a hypocrisy? “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these is of evil.” (Matthew 5: 37) “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: that you may not fall under judgement.” (James 5: 12)[MR. JOHN LANE:] Comment: Spectacularly beside the point, and unnecessarily judging one's neighbour."

Now, actually, to be frank, my first tendency on that issue is to whole-heartedly agree with the Bishop.

Well, I might agree with him also, except that I find that there is no need for me to enter into this business of judging the hypocrisy or otherwise of my neighbour. Read that quote in context and see how Bishop Sanborn has introduced an utterly irrelevant judgement into his argument. He is meant to be proving, in that place, that even if the priest does not mention the odious name, a layman still may not assist at such a Mass. Yet he introduces the utterly irrelevant consideration as to whether or not the priest’s silence is morally defensible! On what grounds is this relevant? May we not now assist at the Mass of a priest whom we think is a hypocrite? (Would Bishop Sanborn please state clearly for the court whether he escapes this condemnation himself? A “yes” will be taken as proof of the contrary; a “no” will make the question redundant).

I hasten to add, I do not actually agree with Bishop Sanborn’s judgement, which seems to me to arise partly from the erroneous and unCatholic principles expressed in his “Opinionism” article. As Pius XII said (Allocution, July 12, 1939), “let none dictate to others more than is dictated to all by the Church, the teacher and mother of all.” (I suspect that the pope was quoting a Father or Doctor, but no reference is given. In any case, the doctrine is a commonplace of theology, only unknown by Conciliarist thugs and certain Guerardian theorists.)

Those who are inclined to accept Bishop Sanborn’s reasoning ought also to spend some time pondering the implications of his claim that even a Mass in which the name of Benedict is omitted must be avoided, if the priest is not publicly known to omit that name. In other words, we must avoid “non-una-cum Masses” if the priest is not openly sedevacantist. Since this is Bishop Sanborn’s own assertion, we hesitate to deny that he really thinks it true, but at first glance it seems incredible that he could really believe it. He has just finished enunciating all of the reasons why it is the very mention of that name in the Canon which makes this Mass offered by a Catholic priest a “non-Catholic Mass.” Which is it, we wonder? Is it the “una cum” that is the problem, or is it really that the priest, in his insufferable insolence, hypocrisy, and general sinfulness, has failed to agree with Bishop Sanborn’s personal judgement that Benedict is merely a “material” pope?

Actually, if I had to choose which of these arguments is Bishop Sanborn’s real thought (and we must choose, for they are mutually incompatible), I would select the latter. That is, Bishop Sanborn really thinks that acceptance of the claim of Benedict to be more than “materially” pope is in itself sufficient to place one outside the Church and on the path to eternal perdition. (I hasten to clarify, however, that according to Bishop Sanborn's theoretical framework if you think Benedict is capable of validly placing certain selected acts of a true pope, you are not thus outside the Church and on the path to eternal perdition. But don’t mistake which acts he may validly place, or else.)

Zaqueu wrote:

Actually, this duplicity on the part of occult sedevacantists does not seem to do much good for the sedevacantist cause.

Well, have you considered that they may regard their own judgement as merely their own judgement, and that they may regard it as less certain than you or I might regard our judgement to be? In other words, humility might be behind it, rather than sin. You might also consider that a simple priest (not a towering intellectual like the good Bishop Sanborn) thinks that his mission in life is to worship God and bring the sacraments to the faithful, not to "do good to the sedevacantist cause.”

Zaqueu wrote:

I have a personal interest in this question, since I'm on the eve of being kicked out of my circle of friends, job, kids' school, etc. (NB: in a country with absolutely no SV chapel in sight), in reason of defending sedevacantism. That’s why I appreciate any help I can get, though I must add that neither you, Mr. Lane, nor anybody else should be in the least bit worried about my case, though urgent, since it's a sure fact that, unlike the above-mentioned priests, I'm utterly unable to remain silent about the sedevacantist solution anyway!

I certainly understand the problem, as I’ve not found a way to keep it secret either.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:39 am

Zaqueu

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 amPosts: 31

Quote:

Well, have you considered that they may regard their own judgement as merely their own judgement, and that they may regard it as less certain than you or I might regard our judgement to be? In other words, humility might be behind it, rather than sin. You might also consider that a simple priest (not a towering intellectual like the good Bishop Sanborn) thinks that his mission in life is to worship God and bring the sacraments to the faithful, not to "do good to the sedevacantist cause.”

Thank you very much, that's what I was looking for. Now that you've said it, it seems obvious enough... too bad I didn't manage to figure that out for myself earlier.

Now, in view of your current polemics against Mgr Sanborn and Fr Cekada (or rather their polemics against fellow sedevacantists who assist at Una Cum Masses?), which by the way has been a very profitable read to me and surely to many others, it's rather ironic that one of the things that first dispelled my prejudice against sedevacantism was, on the one hand, reading Mr. Daly's revision of his earlier rigorist position, together with your own balanced judgment of the SSPX and una-cum Masses, and on the other hand, learning how sedeprivationists considered that the hierarchy could be materially there without being formally effective, which helped to attenuate the scary consequences of sedevacantism, so that I could consider the rest of the sedevacantist case with a dispassioned eye.

Nota bene: that was while I had only bits and pieces of the sedevacantist solution in my mind, sort of floating in the air, coming from various sources not yet adequately distinguished and evaluated, and I hadn't realized yet how they might clash with each other or the inner coherence and implications of each one in the "system" they form.

Yet I can't help but wonder, if both of these things that drew me here could somehow be tied into a system, then what I had in my mind during this short while was perhaps yet another branch of sedevacantism, and a new one at that, which we might tentatively entitle, say, "Guérardo-LaneDalyism"?! Now that would be lefebvrist-friendly sedevacantism! (I say that with a tongue in cheek, of course. Perhaps I should know better than to try and joke in a foreign language....)

Anyway, please keep up the good work! This site has been a blessing (surely, every blessing brings its cross, but still, I'm deeply thankful).

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Zaqueu

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:40 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Zaqueu wrote:

Now, in view of your current polemics against Mgr Sanborn and Fr Cekada (or rather their polemics against fellow sedevacantists who assist at Una Cum Masses?),

That is right. I am defending the traditional stance, which has come under recent assault. I published nothing on this for a decade after Bishop Sanborn began his campaign. I assisted at Masses offered by sedeplenist priests from my very first traditional Mass in 1988, right through until the only one which was available to me was essentially an "Indult" job, and (after four years) when the situation was returned to what it had been previously, I returned to assisting at Holy Mass offered by sedeplenist traditional Catholic clergy. I have at all times been happy to live and let live. I only published my article on this subject in response to the public claim that anybody who acted as I acted was automatically excommunicated. And it is not necessarily well known, but my failure to agree with Fr. Cekada led him to take various actions in order to undermine my credibility with others, almost all of which I have until recently ignored. And of course, I have never yet attacked or criticised anybody for thinking that they cannot for whatever reason assist at a Mass offered by a sedeplenist priest. I am definitely and beyond any possibility of contradiction, defending myself and others against a novelty (originating with Bishop Guerard des Lauriers) which Bishop Sanborn has attempted to impose upon us. I don't doubt their good will, but those are the facts.

But this nascent schism has now become sufficiently dangerous so that it cannot be ignored. Take the case of those nuns in Spokane. Consider their thinking, which is essentially, "If Benedict is pope, I must change my religion to match his. If he is not pope, then I may reject his religion and keep my own." Whose thinking is that? It certainly isn't the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre, and nor is it the thought of the SSPX today. It can't be the thinking of any of the earlier traditional Catholics, because if it were, they'd all have gone along with the new religion in the beginning and there would be no traditional resistance. So, where did it come from?

It came from Bishop Sanborn. He has been pushing that line for over decade now. As I have pointed out before, as a means of prompting a sedeplenist to reconsider his position it is a potentially useful line of argument. But to present it as though obedience trumps faith - or worse, that obedience IS faith - is to establish the grounds for mass apostasy. I find that this kind of argument is essentially (and ironically) that of the Vatican II heretics themselves. Bishop Sanborn would possibly spit his coffee over his keyboard if he read that, but that's where it leads. Faith, residing in the intellect, is destroyed as a distinct virtue from obedience, under the Conciliarist regime. The faith is thereby whatever Ratzinger says it is today. Living tradition and all that. This also explains why you never hear a Conciliarist make an allegation of heresy. Only "dissidence." This is because under the Conciliarist theory "heresy" can't have any meaning which differs from "disobedience." Schism still makes sense to these people, because it is in their minds "big-time disobedience." But heresy? What is heresy? What is truth?

The fact remains that we must obey God rather than men. It is indeed lawful to resist even a pope who commands something sinful. Against this standard doctrine supported by numerous quotes from authorities, including St. Thomas, Fr. Cekada has attempted once or twice in recent years to argue that such quotes may not be applied by laymen, or even (apparently) by individual bishops such as Archbishop Lefebvre, but only by groups of bishops or by councils. Yet his inability to discover supporting documentation for this strange position does not seem to have slowed him down. The one apparently relevant quote Fr. Cekada has uncovered is from Vitoria, who teaches:“Proposition 23: ‘It would not seem permitted for any private person on his own authority to resist and not obey the Pope’s directives, however much these would contradict a Council’s decision.’ This is correct. For it would be a great act of irreverence and near-contempt for supreme authority if anyone were allowed to act towards a Pope in a way that would not be permitted towards a bishop, whose directive (however unjust) one may not disobey on private authority.”

Consider that closely. Vitoria is telling us that we may not resist even a bishop unless we have something other than "private authority." Fr. Cekada makes the latter consist in the authority enjoyed by a council - but not a bishop, priest or layman. Could this doctrine be correct? How can we deny it, since it is given, apparently, by the great theologian Vitoria? Please ensure the argument is firmly grasped: One must not disobey a bishop on "private authority" and therefore a fortiori one may not disobey a pope.

Well, it’s an idea. Frankly, I am inclined to reject it until further context is provided by Fr. Cekada, because as it stands it is a nonsense. Vitoria in this place cannot be saying that laymen (and a fortiori bishops) cannot compare Catholic doctrine with an order issued by a superior and form a judgement about whether to obey. He denies that anybody, even a bishop, can resist an order “on his own authority” and this is verified even in the case where the order “contradict[s] a Council’s decision.” How is it on one’s own authority if it is supported by a council? Anyway, we await either a larger section of Vitoria’s thesis, or quotes from other authorities.

In the mean time traditional Catholics, sedeplenist or sedevacantist, are entitled to rely upon St. Thomas and other such perfectly clear authorities, and of course the classic, Liberalism is a Sin, which instructs us as follows:"Of what use would be the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the faithful could not of themselves make the immediate application, or if they were constantly obliged to consult the Pope or the diocesan pastor? Just as the general rule of morality is the law in accordance with which each one squares his own conscience (dictamen practicum - "practical judgment") in making particular applications of this general rule (subject to correction if erroneous), so the general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, is and ought to be in consonance with every particular judgment formed in making concrete applications - subject, of course, to correction and retraction in the event of mistake in so applying it. It would be rendering the superior rule of faith useless, absurd and impossible to require the supreme authority of the Church to make its special and immediate application in every case and upon every occasion which calls it forth.”

Fr. Cekada says, "The theologian Suarez, in fact, says that neither Gal 2:11-14 nor Mt 18:17 allow 'fraternal correction' of a pope through public denunciation of his crime." Which is interesting, especially when one considers that Fr. Cekada has also just referred us to St. Thomas, Ad Galatas 2:3.11-14. Checking this reference, we find that the Angelic Doctor teaches the opposite of Suarez's doctrine.

St. Thomas actually says, "Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude." And further on, commenting upon the text, "I said to Cephas, i.e., to Peter, before them all..." the Angelic Doctor explains, "'Them that sin, reprove before all' (1 Tim. 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed."

Did it not suit Fr. Cekada to follow St. Thomas all the way? Did he pick and choose his references to suit his argument? Obviously not. Only a criminal would do that. Evidently this is merely a case of wishful thinking preventing clear consideration of the texts. Zeal overcame caution.

Fr. Cekada asserts without any apparent foundation that, "The principle, however, applies only to fraternal correction. No theologian I know of extends it to rejecting a pope’s universal disciplinary laws or teachings of his universal ordinary magisterium." And a footnote to this point reads, "If anyone maintains that it does, he can spare me his arguments and just cite the theological works that specifically support his position."

This is a neat attempt to shift the burden of proof, but it won’t wash. It is true that the theologians teach that the Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary provisions. This is theologically certain. Is it therefore a denial of the faith to choose a different opinion? No. But this is not even what our sedeplenist opponents do – they are in fact doubtful about the questions of fact involved. That is, they doubt that the Novus Ordo, for example, was properly promulgated. Fr. Cekada has recognised this challenge and has provided an answer, in which he attempted to prove that there was no substantial defect in this promulgation. Maybe he succeeded in his proof, too. Are we now to condemn all of those who fail to see that Fr. Anthony Cekada has proved that the Novus Ordo was in fact properly promulgated? Are we reduced to this?

But further, what exactly does Fr. Cekada mean by this term, the pope’s “universal ordinary magisterium”? Is that from a theology manual? If so, it would be useful to know which one. Perhaps he slipped, and meant to refer to the ordinary, universal, magisterium of the Church, by which I suppose he is alleging that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer, for example, ought to have recognised the actions of the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of Vatican II in 1965, and immediately submitted their judgement to that of the moral unanimity of the bishops, despite having been assured on numerous occasions that the Council had no intention of issuing any binding doctrinal pronouncements? Yes, I doubt it too. But Fr. Cekada can tell us what he meant.

In the mean time let’s also be quite specific about this question of disobeying a pope’s universal disciplinary provisions (e.g. the Code). Which canons exactly are the sedeplenist traditional Catholics disobeying? I agree that we can be sure that John Paul II was not pope when he promulgated the New Code in 1983, because otherwise he could never have erred by including in it permission for non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist. This is a perfectly cogent argument. But what does not appear to have any cogency is the suggestion that those who decline to provide the Holy Eucharist to non-Catholics, or who regard that law as impious and sacrilegious, are thereby disobeying some order or other. What is the order?

So, what exactly does this little rhetorical flourish mean? "The principle, however, applies only to fraternal correction. No theologian I know of extends it to rejecting a pope’s universal disciplinary laws or teachings of his universal ordinary magisterium." I certainly don’t know, so I will have to await further clarification from Fr. Cekada.

Zaqueu wrote:

Yet I can't help but wonder, if both of these things that drew me here could somehow be tied into a system, then what I had in my mind during this short while was perhaps yet another branch of sedevacantism, and a new one at that, which we might tentatively entitle, say, "Guérardo-LaneDalyism"?!

Well, I certainly agree we need a synthesis which deals cogently with the various difficulties of the sedevacantist position. Bishop Sanborn sees the need and adopts the Guerardian solution. Fr. Cekada perhaps agrees with him – but he has yet to say so. Who can tell?

Now, let’s complete this post with another excerpt from Liberalism is a Sin, which follows shortly after the quote given above. For “hardened sectaries of the Liberal school” think “hardened sectaries of the anti-SSPX school.” “The greatest rigorists on this point are the most hardened sectaries of the Liberal school. But how explain this apparent contradiction? It is easily explained, if we only reflect that nothing could be more convenient for Liberalism than to put this legal muzzle upon the lips and the pens of their most determined adversaries. It would be in truth a great triumph for them, under the pretext that no one except the Pope and the bishops could speak with the least authority, and thus to impose silence upon the lay champions of the Faith, such as were DeMaistre, Cortes, Veuillot, Ward, Lucas and McMaster, who once bore, and others who now bear, the banner of the Faith so boldly and unflinchingly against its most insidious foes.”

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:29 am

eliz carroll

John Lane on Fr. Cekada:

"Yet his inability to discover supporting documentaion for this strange position does not seem to have slowed him down"

Terri Schaivo R.I.P.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:37 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

eliz carroll wrote:

John Lane on Fr. Cekada:

Correction: John Lane on Fr. Cekada on that point. Generally he is very careful, and his reasoning is very tight.

eliz carroll wrote:

Terri Schaivo R.I.P.

I understand, but on the narrow point that Fr. Cekada was making, which is that one is not obliged to provide treatment via extraordinary means, he was fully in line with authority. To overturn his point his opponents had to resort to citing John Paul II.

However, the complete judgement about whether Mr. Schiavo had the right to withdraw the feeding tube depended upon factual data which I do not think was available to outsiders, so despite defending Fr. Cekada on the point just mentioned, I am far from comfortable with his apparent approval of the actions of Mr. Schiavo in toto. Not that Fr. Cekada definitely approved of his actions in toto - but he gave that impression, from which of course many Catholics took great scandal. Including yourself, by the looks.

Sadly, just as with this campaign against the Catholicity of the four hundred priests of the SSPX, Fr. Cekada's actions in this case have definitely reduced the number of people who are open to the sedevacantist position. Ironic, to be sure.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:08 am

eliz carroll

First correction gratefully accepted, John.

Second point on Fr. Cekada and extraordinary means, no thank you. You said that to overturn his point his opponents had to resort to citing John Paul II.

I do not doubt that some of his opponents resorted to JP2, bless their hearts. However, I must point out that Fr. Cekada's most brilliant "opponent", Fr. William Jenkins, had no need to resort to JP2. He said that Fr. Cekada seriously misrepresented the work of moral theologian Fr.McFadden (c. 1958).

One needn't be an outsider to know that a PEG just ain't no big deal any longer. It drops out, oops, pick it up and stick it right back in. People use them for years and years. Fifty years ago, it was another story. In fact, Fr. Cekada uses the 50-year old work of Fr.McFadden, but he was unsuccessful in his efforts to overturn...

Fr. Cekada: "Like the IV drip mentioned by the moral theolgian McFadden (whom I uoted elsewhere) one could maintain this procedure would be morally compulsary "as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period" He then quotes Fr.McFadden:

"Surely, however, ant effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would create a grave hardship." (Medical Ethics, 1958)

********************

I love Fr. Cekada, but I agree heartily with Fr. Jenkins who said Fr. Cekada "seriously misrepresents Fr.McFadden's true position on the matter of feeding a patient in need. In the first place Fr. McFadden was writing about an intravenous drip, inserted by a needle into a patient's vein, not a PEG. Secondly, he was considering this procedure as it was inflicted 50 years ago, when such a means was much more uncommon and problem-prone.

But most importantly, Fr.McFadden goes on to state his position about removing such an IV line which is already in place (note that Theresa Schaivo was not terminally ill). Fr. McFadden says

'In actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenal feeding in the above case. The fact thatthis form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessetates a different outlook on the problem.

First, the danger of scandal would be very real [ yes, many Catholics including myself took great scandal - Fr. McFadden is right ]
members of a family who knew that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and then witness the withdrawal of of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering. Second, doctors who received permission, perhaps from a hospital chaplain, toact in this fashion in this specific type of case would not appreciate all of the fine moral distinctions involved, and soon they would be carrying over the practice to countless cases wherein they perceived the preservation of life as useless. Third, it is fundamentally the patient himself who has the right to decide whether or not he shall continue with useless and extraordinary means which will prolong his intense suffering. It would be rash,indeed, to pose the question to him in his present condition, and it might be rash for others to make the decision for him. Who but God knows what goes on in the mind of such a person? Who but God knows what spiritual benefit such suffering may hold for the patient - on the basis of intentions made before the suffering became so intense but at a time when the patient anticipated them as a proximate reality. Finally, who is willing to assume responsibility for acting as if the patient has spiritually prepared himself for death? If medical opinion believes that the patient could survive a few weeks, it may very well be that the patient believes he will completely recover. If such be the case, even the fact that the person has received the Last Sacraments is no guarantee that these have been rightly and fruitfully received. [ Fr. McFadden could see the problems with Last Sacraments in these cases 50 years ago ] (Fr. Joseph McFadden Medical Ethics 1958 edition pages 273-274)

So Fr.Cekada's opponents were already opposing his positions before he was born, and they continue to do so without the guidence of JP2.

As the arguably most vocal, most quoted, and referred-to sedevacantist priest, his position on the Schaivo Case scandalised countless Catholics. On the basis of that issue alone, there are any number of people who will not even discuss the sedevacantist theory. The factual data is available to the average Joe with a friend, co-worker, client, or loved-one with a PEG. Everybody know Terri Shiavo was not terminally ill and that she could take water and food by mouth. I've always been taught that we die in 3 days without water. It took Terri Schiavo 12 days to die by dehydration and starvation. Mr. Scjhiavo's lawyer was a prominant euthanasia advocate. It was not only insiders who knew this. The Schiavo Case may not have been such a big deal in Austraila as here in America.

I have always thought it a strange coincedence that so many people perished in the same manner as Terri in their attics, etc. in New Orleans after Hurrican Katrina.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:06 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

eliz carroll wrote:

I do not doubt that some of his opponents resorted to JP2, bless their hearts. However, I must point out that Fr. Cekada's most brilliant "opponent", Fr. William Jenkins, had no need to resort to JP2. He said that Fr. Cekada seriously misrepresented the work of moral theologian Fr.McFadden (c. 1958).

I haven't seen that response, Eliz. Was it published somewhere? Can you post it or send it to me please?

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:46 pm

eliz carroll

Dear John, The only way I can manage to get this online is to Google like this:

extraordinary means catholic morality 1958

then down on page one, see Schaivo2A and click. It is an editorial written by Fr. William Jenkins posted on wftsradio.com, but I have no luck getting it the regular way. Computers are still a mystery for me.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

Of potential interest in the present circumstances.

Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:32 pm

NJCatholic

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:40 amPosts: 5

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

I saw nothing eye-opening.

Last edited by NJCatholic on Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:55 pm

Julian

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pmPosts: 48

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

NJCatholic wrote:

Third, he makes the shocking statement that Bp Sanborn needs to prove that assistance at a Mass implies communion with whoever is named in the canon. What else could it possibly imply?

If this is a rhetorical question, you can certainly provide sources for the answer. It is probably more shocking to be shocked by notions which cannot be backed up by theologians.

NJCatholic wrote:

I hold the SV position largely because of the writings of Bp Sanborn and Fr Cekada. I did not find the article by John "eye-opening" and I thank Bp Sanborn for his informative essay.

Does a subjective opinion change the quality of Sanborn/Cekada´s articles? I, for my part, now reject many of the reasons why I firstly became a "traditionalist". True, their style and purpose is maybe more populistic, but this does not discredit Mr. Lane.

Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:33 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

NJCatholic wrote:

I am not convinced by John's reasoning. In the article

Which article?

Quote:

First, he misses a distinction between the priest and the other Mass-goers not knowing that B16 is anti-pope and the person in question(John) knowing. And the question is what should the person aware of the situation in the church do. That is, maybe the other people in the pews honestly don't know, but you do, John. You never address that.

In the one article in which I tried to cover all of the ground that various people had tilled on this subject < http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html >, I did indeed focus on the position of the layman in the pew. Here's a chunk introducing the relevant sections.

Quote:

The second problem, the essentially evil nature of a positive error, might bear on the issue in two possible ways. The two ways in which the error of a priest in this matter might affect the faithful are, i) if they believed it themselves, which will be considered immediately below, or ii) if they were somehow held responsible for it. And the only way in which the faithful could conceivably be held responsible for the error of a priest with whom they associate is if they could be said to co-operate in his error. Suffice it to say at this point that it is absurd prima facie to say that an avowed sedevacantist who assists at the Mass of a priest who names John Paul II as pope intends to co-operate with the priest’s error. The only possibility with which we may concern ourselves is that the sedevacantist faithful at such a Mass unwillingly (i.e. merely materially) co-operate with the naming of John Paul II by the very fact of assisting at such a Mass. This possibility will also be considered later in this paper (v. infra. “Does assistance at such a Mass imply co-operation with the naming of John Paul II as pope?”).

But you can't assert that a distinction is relevant without saying why. Yes, I know he isn't pope. What's the import of that?

Quote:

Second, he seems to equate avoiding una-cum Masses with avoiding sacraments from una-cum priests. One could receive, say, Confession, from an una-cum priest, since the words of absolution do not imply communion with any particular pontiff. On the other hand, the Mass is more than a sacrament.

Once again, this is a true distinction without any supporting argument as to why it matters. For the record, the reason I addressed the broader question is that many of those who would outlaw sedeplenist Masses argue that the sedeplenist priest is a non-Catholic. Therefore they say, one cannot approach him for any sacraments (except perhaps absolution in danger of death).

Quote:

Third, he makes the shocking statement that Bp Sanborn needs to prove that assistance at a Mass implies communion with whoever is named in the canon. What else could it possibly imply?

That's funny! Nobody at my chapel thinks it implies that. I'll bet you a carton of beer it never occurred to any of them. But in 1958 it would have implied that, I agree, if it ever occurred to anybody to think about it at all. See if you can spot the difference.

Quote:

I hold the SV position largely because of the writings of Bp Sanborn and Fr Cekada. I did not find the article by John "eye-opening" and I thank Bp Sanborn for his informative essay.

Bishop Sanborn's article re-defines communicatio in sacris in order to make it fit the case, because it doesn't. What I find truly sad is that we have traditional clergy who do that kind of thing, which is no different in its essential nature than what happened at Vatican II, and most are too blinded by party spirit to find it offensive. It's scandalous.

I agree that his articles are generally very helpful and they certainly did me a lot of good in the early days too. I'm not against him, I'm actually grateful to him, but I hate what he did in this case.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:17 am

MConstantine

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pmPosts: 14

Re:

John Lane wrote:

Those who refuse to accept the situation, and attempt by a kind of intellectual violence to force everybody to submit to their own judgements, are usurping authority and effectively denying the necessity for the papacy.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but doesn't the Church normally speak of the Papacy as being instituted as a boon (or benefit) for the Church? In my arguments with Novus Ordo members, I am constantly having to tell them that the Papacy is a boon (or benefit) instituted by God for the Church, specifically to the end of confirming the (or us in our) Faith: i.e., approving (or defending) that which already positively exists. One reason for this apologetic is because a contrary view easily lends itself to the anathematised (by the First Vatican Council) idea that the Pope can teach the Church something (or anything) new, or that it even exists for that purpose: e.g., to manifest new Revelation from God.

The Papacy = necessity argument also lends itself to the thought conducive with the N.O. argument, which is based on their interpretation of Vatican I's term, perpetual successors, that (practically speaking) there must always be an occuptant of the Papacy; otherwise (they argue) the Church is (somehow) defunct (or has failed).

Therefore, I would say that the Papacy is necessarily a part of the Church (as by nature), because the Papacy cannot be taken from Her, nor the Church from the Papacy (e.g., "Where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church"); but the Church, nonetheless, in Her Ordinary Magisterium, still possesses infallibility as well as the entirety of the deposit of the Faith, as my Douay 1649 Catechism teaches clearly. Further, bishops do not cease being true successors of the Apostles simply because the Pope has died or has been a long-time dead; that is, they lose nothing of their Apostolic character, as it were. We wonder, then, what makes the Papacy necessary for the Church.

Let us recall our scholastic precision. The definition of necessity is "that without which something cannot be". Now we all know the Church doesn't necessarily need to have a Pope. Ergo, the Papacy is not, absolutely speaking, necessary for the Church (to exist); it is, however, an obvious and undeniable part of, and benefit to the Church - as God's profound love for His Spotless Bride, on consideration, would (I think) cause us to anticipate.

Wed May 23, 2012 2:30 am

MConstantine

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pmPosts: 14

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

John Lane wrote:

NJCatholic wrote:

I am not convinced by John's reasoning. In the article

Which article?

Quote:

First, he misses a distinction between the priest and the other Mass-goers not knowing that B16 is anti-pope and the person in question(John) knowing. And the question is what should the person aware of the situation in the church do. That is, maybe the other people in the pews honestly don't know, but you do, John. You never address that.

In the one article in which I tried to cover all of the ground that various people had tilled on this subject < http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html >, I did indeed focus on the position of the layman in the pew. Here's a chunk introducing the relevant sections.

Quote:

The second problem, the essentially evil nature of a positive error, might bear on the issue in two possible ways. The two ways in which the error of a priest in this matter might affect the faithful are, i) if they believed it themselves, which will be considered immediately below, or ii) if they were somehow held responsible for it. And the only way in which the faithful could conceivably be held responsible for the error of a priest with whom they associate is if they could be said to co-operate in his error. Suffice it to say at this point that it is absurd prima facie to say that an avowed sedevacantist who assists at the Mass of a priest who names John Paul II as pope intends to co-operate with the priest’s error. The only possibility with which we may concern ourselves is that the sedevacantist faithful at such a Mass unwillingly (i.e. merely materially) co-operate with the naming of John Paul II by the very fact of assisting at such a Mass. This possibility will also be considered later in this paper (v. infra. “Does assistance at such a Mass imply co-operation with the naming of John Paul II as pope?”).

But you can't assert that a distinction is relevant without saying why. Yes, I know he isn't pope. What's the import of that?

Quote:

Second, he seems to equate avoiding una-cum Masses with avoiding sacraments from una-cum priests. One could receive, say, Confession, from an una-cum priest, since the words of absolution do not imply communion with any particular pontiff. On the other hand, the Mass is more than a sacrament.

Once again, this is a true distinction without any supporting argument as to why it matters. For the record, the reason I addressed the broader question is that many of those who would outlaw sedeplenist Masses argue that the sedeplenist priest is a non-Catholic. Therefore they say, one cannot approach him for any sacraments (except perhaps absolution in danger of death).

Quote:

Third, he makes the shocking statement that Bp Sanborn needs to prove that assistance at a Mass implies communion with whoever is named in the canon. What else could it possibly imply?

That's funny! Nobody at my chapel thinks it implies that. I'll bet you a carton of beer it never occurred to any of them. But in 1958 it would have implied that, I agree, if it ever occurred to anybody to think about it at all. See if you can spot the difference.

Quote:

I hold the SV position largely because of the writings of Bp Sanborn and Fr Cekada. I did not find the article by John "eye-opening" and I thank Bp Sanborn for his informative essay.

Bishop Sanborn's article re-defines communicatio in sacris in order to make it fit the case, because it doesn't. What I find truly sad is that we have traditional clergy who do that kind of thing, which is no different in its essential nature than what happened at Vatican II, and most are too blinded by party spirit to find it offensive. It's scandalous.

I agree that his articles are generally very helpful and they certainly did me a lot of good in the early days too. I'm not against him, I'm actually grateful to him, but I hate what he did in this case.

Dear Mr. Lane,

I think this is all rather easily explained. I believe you are correct in marking any inconsistencies or any contradictions whatsoever, etc., that can be found in Bp. Sanborn's una cum doctrine; notwithstanding, I can also immediately and easily recognise and understand why a faithful priest would be absoluely horrified at even the thought of a (faithful) priest praying for a heresiarch as if he were a Pope. Moreover, I can also understand why such priests would be militant in admonishing the consciences of the lay faithful to avoid all who would do such a thing as being alike to warlocks.

The first reaction arises from fidelity and a consideration of the sanctity of the Church and the priesthood, as well as a priest's duty to God and to the faithful. The second arises from a paternal concern for the faithful, whom the faithful pastor assumes out of charity to be simple (not in intelligence per se, but rather in the sense of childlike innocency). It is therefore the priest's prudent policy to consider, as it were, the weakest link and, therefore, the whole is admonished not to place themselves in situations that are even simply spritually dangerous (i.e., only potentially).

For example, there is no evil in a ladder; notwithstanding, a father might admonish his children, as a general rule, to stay away from it (or one), even if some of them he know coulb be trusted about it, or even on it. The father thinks, for example, that there may be men working above and dangerous things might fall on the children; or that the ladder may not be properly secured, or in itself be unsound, etc. Nonetheless, the father's concern is for his children's welfare, and he might feel negligent in his duty if he even gave his children tacit permission to place themselves in even a potential situation of (mortal) danger.

It is obvious to all that those who recognise the Conciliar papal claimants to be actual Popes - especially if they are or claim to be priests - are potentially hazardous. This is because their own spiritual position, so to speak, is founded on quicksand and liable to go just about anywhere. For example, the current SSPX crises seems to arise almost exclusively from the fact that those priests admit or believe Benedict XVI to be an actual or legitimate Pope.

Mr. Lane, I very much respect your learning and contribution; and I hope you know that I truly write this out of concern for not only unity but sincerely also out of charity.

Pax Christi.

Wed May 23, 2012 2:54 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

Re. the papacy:

Cardinal Franzelin, the famous theologian who was appointed by Pope Pius IX as his personal theologian at the Vatican Council of 1870, explains this and other relevant distinctions.

Hence the distinction arises between the seat [i.e. the See] and the one sitting in it, by reason of perpetuity. The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be vacant and often is vacant. Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.

From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the vacancy of the See and the time of the occupation of the See [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, is owed to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but does not yet exist; in the time of the occupation of the See he now actually sits by divine right. It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith. Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility in believing (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility in proclaiming the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church for all days even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and centre of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ...

...When the pope dies, says Cano, the Church, without doubt, remains one, and the Spirit of truth remains in her; but she is left crippled and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, although truth even then is in the Church; but if controversies over the faith and religion should arise, the judgments of the Church which is without a head on earth will not be as certain.

On account of the distinction as explained, in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants, being mortal, fail at intervals, the Apostolic See itself, as the necessary foundation and centre of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material. Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII, Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff. Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri May 25, 2012 1:11 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

MConstantine wrote:

Dear Mr. Lane,

I think this is all rather easily explained. I believe you are correct in marking any inconsistencies or any contradictions whatsoever, etc., that can be found in Bp. Sanborn's una cum doctrine; notwithstanding, I can also immediately and easily recognise and understand why a faithful priest would be absoluely horrified at even the thought of a (faithful) priest praying for a heresiarch as if he were a Pope. Moreover, I can also understand why such priests would be militant in admonishing the consciences of the lay faithful to avoid all who would do such a thing as being alike to warlocks.

The first reaction arises from fidelity and a consideration of the sanctity of the Church and the priesthood, as well as a priest's duty to God and to the faithful. The second arises from a paternal concern for the faithful, whom the faithful pastor assumes out of charity to be simple (not in intelligence per se, but rather in the sense of childlike innocency). It is therefore the priest's prudent policy to consider, as it were, the weakest link and, therefore, the whole is admonished not to place themselves in situations that are even simply spritually dangerous (i.e., only potentially).

For example, there is no evil in a ladder; notwithstanding, a father might admonish his children, as a general rule, to stay away from it (or one), even if some of them he know coulb be trusted about it, or even on it. The father thinks, for example, that there may be men working above and dangerous things might fall on the children; or that the ladder may not be properly secured, or in itself be unsound, etc. Nonetheless, the father's concern is for his children's welfare, and he might feel negligent in his duty if he even gave his children tacit permission to place themselves in even a potential situation of (mortal) danger.

It is obvious to all that those who recognise the Conciliar papal claimants to be actual Popes - especially if they are or claim to be priests - are potentially hazardous. This is because their own spiritual position, so to speak, is founded on quicksand and liable to go just about anywhere. For example, the current SSPX crises seems to arise almost exclusively from the fact that those priests admit or believe Benedict XVI to be an actual or legitimate Pope.

Mr. Lane, I very much respect your learning and contribution; and I hope you know that I truly write this out of concern for not only unity but sincerely also out of charity.

Pax Christi.

There's no problem disagreeing with me. In this case, I agree with most of what you write, but just as I can recognise the good will in those who give that advice, I can also see why it's dangerous itself for many reasons. Chiefly, in many places, probably most places, access to non-SSPX masses is unavailable, or infrequent. Therefore the choice is between whatever danger the priest might represent, and infrequent access to Holy Mass and the sacraments. But we know with certitude that these are necessary, whereas the supposed danger is disputable. Ergo.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri May 25, 2012 1:15 am

MConstantine

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pmPosts: 14

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

John Lane wrote:

There's no problem disagreeing with me. In this case, I agree with most of what you write, but just as I can recognise the good will in those who give that advice, I can also see why it's dangerous itself for many reasons. Chiefly, in many places, probably most places, access to non-SSPX masses is unavailable, or infrequent. Therefore the choice is between whatever danger the priest might represent, and infrequent access to Holy Mass and the sacraments. But we know with certitude that these are necessary, whereas the supposed danger is disputable. Ergo.

Mr. Lane,

I didn't think there was a problem disagreeing with you. My point is that it makes perfect sense for priests who do not recognise BXVI to be completely abhored at the idea of praying for him as if he were a Catholic, much less a Pope: that makes perfect sense for anyone who puts themselves in the shoes of a priest; it would be like asking them to say a Mass for the Archbishop of Canterbury or Mohammad.

Further, the danger is highly disputable. Some priests of the Society are pro-Reconciliation; others are not. From the perspective of a Mass it is almost impossible to tell, short of a priest giving a Sermon about the issue specifically and manifesting an absolute position of who he is either for or against; however, even that is liable to change. Furthermore, even if he were to ignore the controvery and give a good Sermon on the day's lesson, one would still labour under doubt about where he stood; if, however, the following day there was a deal and he went over, then the Catholic finds himself in the same situation he would have if he were a Sede without reasonable access to Holy Mass.

As someone who couldn't attend even an SSPX Mass if it were available, all I can say is it makes no sense to encourage people - especially during this crisis! - to attend SSPX Masses whilst the Society is absolutely paralysed and deadlocked: God only knows what the local priest is doing through advice, subtle suggestions, ad infinitum to sway the lay faithful to believe this way or that; indeed, it is perfectly likely that he, himself, is also liable to be confused.

Presently, the only people who do not have to worry about the secret minds of men are the ones attending Masses that do not include Benedict XVI. They are - at least presently - "safe," as it were, from the storm; however, I am certain that even they can expect a crippling controversy in the future if the Society goes the way of the dinosaurs, as they say.

My point is simply that it seems almost reckless to encourage people to enter into a sand-storm and not encourage them to go to Masses where the offering priest is under no such stress or liability. Furthermore, as it is increasingly demonstrated that BXVI is a heretic, it is truly a wonder how any man of good will and serious about the priesthood can realistically avoid the controversies or, in good faith, conclude that Benedict XVI is a Catholic - much less the Pope; and by no means do I mean to suggest that such a thing is impossible. However, the tides of time and the increasingly obvious fact that Benedict XVI et al. are not and never were conservative presents a body of evidence that almost makes believing otherwise something approaching wilfull obstinance.

Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:51 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Refuting Fr. Sanborn - and Fr. Cekada enters the fray

MConstantine wrote:

My point is that it makes perfect sense for priests who do not recognise BXVI to be completely abhored at the idea of praying for him as if he were a Catholic, much less a Pope: that makes perfect sense for anyone who puts themselves in the shoes of a priest; it would be like asking them to say a Mass for the Archbishop of Canterbury or Mohammad.

And that would be emotion, not reason. For the Church has condemned Anglicanism and Mohammedanism, but she has not condemned Benedict. Therefore, it should not shock us, and it doesn't shock most sedevacantists, that most priests think he's pope and pray for him as such. It's entirely natural that they would, since not even one ordinary has declared that he is a fraud, let alone the Church herself.

MConstantine wrote:

Further, the danger is highly disputable. Some priests of the Society are pro-Reconciliation; others are not. From the perspective of a Mass it is almost impossible to tell, short of a priest giving a Sermon about the issue specifically and manifesting an absolute position of who he is either for or against; however, even that is liable to change. Furthermore, even if he were to ignore the controvery and give a good Sermon on the day's lesson, one would still labour under doubt about where he stood; if, however, the following day there was a deal and he went over, then the Catholic finds himself in the same situation he would have if he were a Sede without reasonable access to Holy Mass.

So the danger is that the priest might go along with the deal. Even on the hypothesis that this would make his mass unavalailable, which I do not concede, how can it be a solution to such a danger, to treat his mass as unavailable immediately? You suggest that one thus deprive oneself of goods one could have, in case one cannot have them later? Did you really think that through?

MConstantine wrote:

As someone who couldn't attend even an SSPX Mass if it were available, all I can say is it makes no sense to encourage people - especially during this crisis! - to attend SSPX Masses whilst the Society is absolutely paralysed and deadlocked: God only knows what the local priest is doing through advice, subtle suggestions, ad infinitum to sway the lay faithful to believe this way or that; indeed, it is perfectly likely that he, himself, is also liable to be confused.

So you're concerned about what you think is "encouraging" others to continue to fulfil their Sunday obligation at SSPX mass centres. But nobody is saying, "Keep going to the SSPX, I implore you!" or anything even remotely similar. This reveals a very clear contrary agenda - to encourage people to cease assisting at Holy Mass offered by priests of the SSPX. Now I think that agenda is horrible. And I think people who invert the presentation of it so as to make out that they are only opposing people who "encourage people to attend SSPX Masses" reveals a certain discomfort about their own agenda. Why not be candid? Why pretend that others are promoting something, when in reality they are merely not condemning it?

MConstantine wrote:

My point is simply that it seems almost reckless to encourage people to enter into a sand-storm and not encourage them to go to Masses where the offering priest is under no such stress or liability. Furthermore, as it is increasingly demonstrated that BXVI is a heretic, it is truly a wonder how any man of good will and serious about the priesthood can realistically avoid the controversies or, in good faith, conclude that Benedict XVI is a Catholic - much less the Pope; and by no means do I mean to suggest that such a thing is impossible. However, the tides of time and the increasingly obvious fact that Benedict XVI et al. are not and never were conservative presents a body of evidence that almost makes believing otherwise something approaching wilfull obstinance.

Yes, yes, we've heard all this before, in spades. It was asserted in the 1970s. It was so much clearer by then than it had been in the confusion of the '60s - how could any good Catholic not see? And the same argument reappeared continually throughout the subsequent decades. Intrinsically, it's just a way of making one's own judgement equivalent to that of the Church.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum